The Shared Services Chargeback Revolt
Meridian Group is a 4,000-employee distribution business with a central IT function of 90 staff and an annual IT budget of $28 million. Two years ago the CIO introduced an activity-based chargeback model so that each of six business units pays for the services it consumes: helpdesk tickets, ERP licences, storage, and project delivery hours. The model was intended to make demand visible and to fund growth. Instead, business unit leaders now buy their own SaaS tools outside IT (shadow spend estimated at $3.2 million), dispute their monthly invoices in steering meetings, and the ERP team has started quietly absorbing small requests to avoid triggering charges. The CFO likes the transparency but complains that IT cannot explain why her invoice rose 14% in a quarter with flat headcount. The CEO has asked the CIO to 'fix governance' before next year's budget cycle.
1. Diagnose why the chargeback model is producing shadow IT and dispute behaviour rather than the intended demand discipline. Frame your answer in governance terms (decision rights, accountability, transparency).
Read the worked answer
The model is a pricing mechanism without a decision-rights framework, so it shifts behaviour in unintended directions.
- Decision rights are unclear. Business units can unilaterally procure SaaS because nobody owns the 'buy' decision for commodity tools. Chargeback prices IT services but does not define who may source alternatives, so the cheapest local option always wins over the governed one.
- Accountability is misaligned. Unit leaders are measured on their P&L and see the IT invoice as a cost they cannot control, so disputing it is rational. They are not accountable for the enterprise consequences of fragmented tooling (integration cost, data risk, duplicate licences).
- Transparency is one-directional. The CFO's 14% rise with flat headcount signals that the unit rates are not traceable to drivers. If a manager cannot see which consumption caused the increase, the invoice looks arbitrary and trust collapses.
- Perverse incentives. The ERP team absorbing small requests to avoid charges hides demand and corrupts the very data the model needs. That is a symptom of chargeback being experienced as punishment rather than as a signal.
Governance fix: clarify decision rights (what IT must approve, what units may buy freely under a threshold), pair chargeback with unit-level accountability for total technology spend including shadow spend, and publish driver-based statements showing volume, rate, and variance. Chargeback should fund and signal demand, not become a billing dispute.
2. The CIO proposes abolishing chargeback entirely and returning to a central IT budget. Evaluate this option against at least one alternative, and recommend a course of action with justification.
Read the worked answer
Option A - abolish chargeback, recentralise the budget.
- Strengths: removes the dispute theatre, simplifies forecasting, and lets IT plan capacity without gaming.
- Weaknesses: destroys the demand signal that motivated the model; business units revert to treating IT as free and unlimited, and shadow spend may persist because the underlying procurement gap is untouched. It treats the symptom (invoices) not the cause (unclear decision rights).
Option B - retain chargeback but redesign it.
- Keep driver-based pricing only where consumption genuinely varies and the unit can influence it (storage, project hours, devices).
- Move shared and mandatory services (ERP core, security, network) into a flat allocation so units are not billed for things they cannot control.
- Add a transparency layer: a monthly statement per unit showing volume, rate, and variance with a named IT contact.
- Close the procurement loophole: any SaaS above a defined threshold requires architecture and security review regardless of funding source, and shadow spend is counted in the unit's technology total.
Recommendation: Option B, sequenced over two quarters. Abolishing chargeback would remove the CFO's valued transparency and leave the shadow-IT root cause intact. Redesign addresses the diagnosis directly: controllable costs stay variable, uncontrollable costs are pooled, decision rights are explicit, and accountability now covers total technology spend. Success measures: shadow spend down, dispute escalations down, and forecast variance within an agreed tolerance.